Are those five statements above not wrong? Quantum field theory (QFT) has done a great job in *advancing* the knowledge of physics. Is QFT not wrong? It is obviously not an *exact correct* description of Nature. If it is, it will at least be able to derive some (if not all) parameters of Nature, such as the Cabibbo/Weinberg angles and Alpha. In the Alpha equation below, it needs no QFT and does not encompass any QFT parts (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ).

By all means, QFT *was* a great tool in physics but is now useless for these unresolved problems above. Using such an outdated tool as the litmus test for Naturalness is a wrong choice. Nature did not have a *planning committee* or a *steering committed*. Nature created this universe with three steps (ready, get set, go), neither planning nor *trial-and error* (the fine-tuning). That is, Nature started with an axiomatic *point* and goes. Any physics model (the QFT or the whatnot) which cannot describe Nature with an axiomatic system must be not *exactly correct*. Thus, we have a *Naturalness Principle*.